Crevo vs Evo ping
Moron alert.
And an Allosaurus is not a relative of the T-Rex, other than the fact that both were Theropod dinosaurs.
Peter DeRosa peers into that mouth and sees the hand of God.
News Flash! Allosaurus eats GOD!
All I need to read.
I have studied beer for 35 years. I still do not consider myself an expert. It is made with good old fashioned science.
I guess they have to say radio-dating is bogus, otherwise they look like fools.
Is DeRosa claiming that the Bible says that the Earth is only 6,000 years old?
If he is, he is very mistaken because the Bible does NOT say that, nor does it even infer that.
In fact, there is very strong evidence in the Bible that man walked the Earth long before Adam, even though he became extinct and left no progeny.
It's very disappointing when those claiming to be Christians are so very ill-versed in the scriptural Authority that legitimizes their faith.
Relative?
"Don't mention Common Descent. I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it."
You can study dinosaurs all you want. You can dig them up. You can run your hands over the bones, and show them to people, and you can look into the mouth of an Allosaurus. None of that proves the age of the Earth.
The absolute age of the Earth is so well documented (as being well over 3 billion years) by radioisotope studies that anyone who does not accept the results just doesn't understand. There are many people who don't like to face facts.
What puzzles me is why this should make any difference to our religious beliefs one way or another.
The Bible is not supposed to be a science almanac. It has very few meaningful numbers in it. OK: there are ten commandments just by simple enumeration, but almost all the other numbers are hyperbole, or else just figurative. No real data is given, such as how tall Jesus was, or even what his birthdate was. Why then, do some people think that they should be able to figure out from the Genesis story just when a minor, rocky planet was formed, much less the Universe? It isn't in there. It's not part of the Bible story! There are many other things which are not in the Bible. There are, for example, almost no personal descriptions. Esau was hairy, David was shorter than Goliath. Other than that, we aren't even told what the various characters looked like. Apparently, it was not important to the main story. We don't even have a physical description of Jesus.
The Bible says nothing about atomic theory. Nothing even about gravity. Nothing about how to find petroleum, or how to manufacture plastics. We must assume that the Bible is not intended to tell us about such things.
Jesus himself alludes to some meteorological information at one point: just enough to make a point, but without giving us a textbook on the subject. Clearly, the point of the story was not to make a weather prediction. He was making a different point
I don't know anytwhere in the Bible where God says, "You don't need to use your brains, because all the answers are here. It was a mistake for Us to have made you with any judgment at all, because all you have to do is look right here. You should have turned out as a worm. Sorry. Our mistake." No, the Bible doesn't say that.
Some islamists have had the attitude that everything is in the Koran, but nobody with any wit should adopt such a view. Certainly Christians should not treat their Bible like that.
Where did the calcium in the teeth and bones of dinosaurs come from?
They maintain, for example, that they've found organic plant matter buried with fossils indicating the animals died only a few thousand years ago.
Religion is based on faith...
Science is based on fact...
I believe God made the Earth and heavens, I just don't think he took seven 24-hour days. I can live with those seven days being 14 billion years or so long.
Those who are strict Creationists will never see eye to eye with Evolutionists and the Science Crowd will never agree with those believing only in each and every word of the Bible.
Let it go and let us all here on FR agree to disagree on this and keep the focus on defeating those Godless Democrats!
There are probably hundreds of thousands of fossils collected in museums all around the world. They are, each and every one of them, evidence of a living, and intelligent God.
Because...
A committee of intelligent people, can sometimes err, but a mindless process of mutation must err... alot.
Multiply, alot by billions of years and what you have is dozens, or even hundreds, or perhaps thousands of erroroneous mutations, for every single mutation which proves 'right' or successful.
Yet...
They haven't found, not even one of these mutations gone wrong. And isn't that a shame for them? Because all they need is ONE erroneous mutation, and they could prove that a perfect God doesn't exist. Just one!
And on this failure to produce just one bad mutation, the whole 'theory of evolution' thing must be placed immediately in the trash bin of human society called 'silly ideas.'
These morons aren't doing anyone any favors. I have yet to see a dinosaur that's only a few thousand years old-unless you count Robert Byrd.
/sarc
YEC SPOTREP
They are starting with a conclusion - that the Bible is 100 percent accurate - and gathering evidence to support that idea. True science, they say, actively looks for problems with a hypothesis. And over the years, a tremendous amount of research has been conducted specifically to find major flaws in the theories about evolution and the age of Earth. The fundamental principles of both have held up.
Is this any different than evolutionists starting with their conclusion that there is no intelligent designer/creator? No, it isn't!
If true science actually looks for problems with a hypothesis, then evolution is not a science. Evolutionists simply ignore the problems and major flaws.
"The evidence is overwhelming," said Skip Pierce, the chairman of the biology department at the University of South Florida. "These theories are essentially established fact."
Implying that a theory is a fact is intellectually dishonest. If evolution was a fact, why call it a theory? any honest evolutionists would admit that their 'theory' includes a considerable amount of speculation; because it does.
Described most famously by Charles Darwin in 1859, the basics of evolution are fairly simple. The theory holds that all life evolved from earlier, generally more primitive forms.
Speculation.
Organisms survived based on how well-suited they were to their environment. Beneficial traits passed on from parents - genetic variations in speed, size or eyesight - gave some offspring an advantage over competitors. Those offspring - with their unique inherited traits - stood a better chance of surviving and reproducing.
No ider/creationists disputes this.
Darwin suggested that over millions of years those incremental changes reach a point of no return. At some stage, the organism changes so much, it can no longer breed within the species.
suggested = speculated
If its inherited differences are adaptive, it can evolve into a new species.
"If" involves speculation. It has never been observed. At best, evolutionists say it is predictable in the future. If that is not speculation, thee must be a new definition of speculation of which I am unaware.
You'd think He would have known better than to put His hand within biting range.